Nick Coghlan wrote: > Eric Smith wrote: >> Antoine Pitrou wrote: >>> As it is, -1 from me. Either we only keep two concepts (Address and >>> Network), or if we introduce a third one (AddressWithMask, >>> whatever) for added practicality; but we shouldn't blur the line >>> between the two former canonical concepts under the pretext that a >>> platypus-like Address might be helpful in some particular >>> situations. >> I completely agree with this. By keeping the concepts distinct we can >> catch mis-uses earlier. If needed, convenience functions (or >> classes, or whatever) could be layered on top. But the underlying >> concepts need to be clear. > > That would be my view as well (this includes getting rid of the current > duality of IPNetwork by dropping the ip property, only accepting the > network address in the normal constructor and having a separate > constructor that allows a network object to be created from an arbitrary > host address and a netmask) Yes, I think that's the best plan. I could live without AddressWithMask (or whatever name), but it would be a nice convenience. > Is-a-2.x-str-a-sequence-of-ASCII-characters-or-a-chunk-of-binary-data?'ly, LOL! Perfect. Eric.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4